It isn't convoluted, it's very clear, to the point that US law isn't all that different. In US law, I'm only allowed to use ordinary force to get it back in the moment.
If you steal my wallet, I can grab it back from you.
If you steal my wallet, and I punch you to get it back, I'm probably in the clear as long as I don't go too far, or use 'deadly weapons'. (like a gun or brass knuckles)
If you punch me in the face and steal my wallet, and I punch you in the face and get it back; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I punch you in the face and get it back; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I point a gun at you and take it back; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I shoot you in the process of having my wallet taken from me; I'm fine.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I wait until you've put the gun away and are walking away, and I shoot you in the back; I'll be lucky if I don't go to jail for aggravated battery.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I show up to your house 5 days later and shoot you and take my wallet back; it is very likely I'm going to prison a hell of a lot longer than you, and for more charges.
If you point a gun at me and steal my wallet, and I sneak into your house, take it back, and sneak out, I'm actually in the clear as far as a robbery is concerned; but not for trespassing.
When it comes to self defense, imminence is a major factor here. Time changes the situation. As does proportionality and reasonableness. The most I can really do is try to steal it back as long as I don't break the law. But I can't invoke a right to use force against you simply because it's in your possession.
Similarly, what I'm saying is that when you can't appeal to The Law (and no one in international politics can), then I believe that there are times when you have to accept that you lost something, and a reprisal against someone who caused that loss is wholly inappropriate. Especially if that reprisal is disproportionate, and there is no longer an imminent and lethal threat to you.
But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Similarly, what I'm saying is that when you can't appeal to The Law (and no one in international politics can), then I believe that there are times when you have to accept that you lost something, and a reprisal against someone who caused that loss is wholly inappropriate. Especially if that reprisal is disproportionate, and there is no longer an imminent and lethal threat to you.
Extraordinary. You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power. I'm pretty sure that you were not picketing screenings of Red Dawn. That was US doing it.
But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Yes, after you've walked away with my wallet. It would be an act of aggression to blindside punch you in the back of the head, knock-out game style, if you were just standing around waiting for a bus. And yes, the law would punish me for that.
You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I'm not saying whether or not it's legitimate. I'm saying it's not defensive. You have to recognize it as an attack; an act of aggression. You can't claim that anything at any time you do after an origin point of your conflict is defensive because the initial aggression didn't come from you. At some point, you are engaging in an act of aggression, whether legitimate or otherwise.
At a certain point, I have to say, it will most certainly not be legitimate. Particularly decades or centuries into the past. This is why I previously emphasized that even if someone took my house, I would never demand my kids attack the people who happen to be living on it when they grow up.
I wouldn't support that for the same reason I wouldn't say the English or French have a right to start killing Italians for the brutality of Caesar's campaigns. Whatever happened, at some point, you have to accept that things are just the way they are now. If you couldn't stop it initially, there is a point where you literally can't undo it. If you want to reverse it, understand you are the aggressor and you should take heed to act in as moral as possible as an aggressor and conqueror.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power.
Don't make me get a map & a red marker to point out where yours has occupied.
Besides, Red Dawn takes place during an active invasion, and an ongoing war. It's not helpful to your point. That's an obvious case of defensive violence because it is literally ongoing. The Russian soldier is in your house. It's not the same as having your grandson shoot an Estonian who built a barbershop where your house once stood 70 years later.
Yes, after you've walked away with my wallet. It would be an act of aggression to blindside punch you in the back of the head, knock-out game style, if you were just standing around waiting for a bus. And yes, the law would punish me for that.
No, you're just taking your wallet back, just like the Philippines would be taking their land back. It's incredible that the place where they made arguments of convenience for the American Revolution, about the consent of the governed, is now making arguments for "actually, strike all that, we get to steal your land and occupy you in perpetuity".
At a certain point, I have to say, it will most certainly not be legitimate. Particularly decades or centuries into the past.
Is this about Israel or the Philippines? If centuries, let's not forget that they started to occupy Palestinians because they were defeated and expelled by the Romans 18 centuries before, which you say you don't support.
I wouldn't support that for the same reason I wouldn't say the English or French have a right to start killing Italians for the brutality of Caesar's campaigns.
The English and French aren't being occupied right now. If Italians had been occupying France since the time of Caesar's conquests, then of course it's legitimate to resist that. It's just a very weird argument.
Don't make me get a map & a red marker to point out where yours has occupied.
Sir, Uruguay is completely innocent of occupation.
Red Dawn takes place during an active invasion, and an ongoing war.
No idea, never watched it. I've just heard of it.
The Russian soldier is in your house. It's not the same as having your grandson shoot an Estonian who built a barbershop where your house once stood 70 years later.
So this is about Israel and not the Philippines? If there's an American soldier on their land, are they not justified in resisting?
If I snatch your wallet, and you "attack me" by snatching it back, that's not aggression because it's YOURS.
Hard to believe the kind of convoluted justifications you're making. Or maybe you just like esoteric arguments about minutiae that don't matter.
It isn't convoluted, it's very clear, to the point that US law isn't all that different. In US law, I'm only allowed to use ordinary force to get it back in the moment.
When it comes to self defense, imminence is a major factor here. Time changes the situation. As does proportionality and reasonableness. The most I can really do is try to steal it back as long as I don't break the law. But I can't invoke a right to use force against you simply because it's in your possession.
Similarly, what I'm saying is that when you can't appeal to The Law (and no one in international politics can), then I believe that there are times when you have to accept that you lost something, and a reprisal against someone who caused that loss is wholly inappropriate. Especially if that reprisal is disproportionate, and there is no longer an imminent and lethal threat to you.
But in the Philippines case, you framed their resistance as 'aggression' once the conquest was accomplished. So by that logic, you punching me in the face to get your wallet back is your aggression.
Extraordinary. You're actually arguing that people who are occupied should 'accept' that and that 'reprisals' (i.e, trying to drive occupiers out) are not legitimate.
I guess this is 'informed' by the fact that your country normally is the occupying power. I'm pretty sure that you were not picketing screenings of Red Dawn. That was US doing it.
Yes, after you've walked away with my wallet. It would be an act of aggression to blindside punch you in the back of the head, knock-out game style, if you were just standing around waiting for a bus. And yes, the law would punish me for that.
I'm not saying whether or not it's legitimate. I'm saying it's not defensive. You have to recognize it as an attack; an act of aggression. You can't claim that anything at any time you do after an origin point of your conflict is defensive because the initial aggression didn't come from you. At some point, you are engaging in an act of aggression, whether legitimate or otherwise.
At a certain point, I have to say, it will most certainly not be legitimate. Particularly decades or centuries into the past. This is why I previously emphasized that even if someone took my house, I would never demand my kids attack the people who happen to be living on it when they grow up.
I wouldn't support that for the same reason I wouldn't say the English or French have a right to start killing Italians for the brutality of Caesar's campaigns. Whatever happened, at some point, you have to accept that things are just the way they are now. If you couldn't stop it initially, there is a point where you literally can't undo it. If you want to reverse it, understand you are the aggressor and you should take heed to act in as moral as possible as an aggressor and conqueror.
Don't make me get a map & a red marker to point out where yours has occupied.
Besides, Red Dawn takes place during an active invasion, and an ongoing war. It's not helpful to your point. That's an obvious case of defensive violence because it is literally ongoing. The Russian soldier is in your house. It's not the same as having your grandson shoot an Estonian who built a barbershop where your house once stood 70 years later.
No, you're just taking your wallet back, just like the Philippines would be taking their land back. It's incredible that the place where they made arguments of convenience for the American Revolution, about the consent of the governed, is now making arguments for "actually, strike all that, we get to steal your land and occupy you in perpetuity".
Is this about Israel or the Philippines? If centuries, let's not forget that they started to occupy Palestinians because they were defeated and expelled by the Romans 18 centuries before, which you say you don't support.
The English and French aren't being occupied right now. If Italians had been occupying France since the time of Caesar's conquests, then of course it's legitimate to resist that. It's just a very weird argument.
Sir, Uruguay is completely innocent of occupation.
No idea, never watched it. I've just heard of it.
So this is about Israel and not the Philippines? If there's an American soldier on their land, are they not justified in resisting?